The Man for Whom the World was Made

by George L. Murphy

Human beings are always fascinated by questions about origins. Where did the universe
come from, and how did we get here? The opening chapters of Genesis have given
us some of our favorite religious images. Today’s scientists have new tools
with which to explore the universe, and a great deal has been learned about the
origins of life and the universe in the past century. But when we contemplate
the results of looking billions of years into the past and billions of light years
into space, we are still driven to ask questions that men and women asked millennia
ago: What is the point of it all? Is there any meaning to this world in which
we participate?

Christians have never had any doubt that God has a purpose in creation. We
may not be able to understand that purpose, and perhaps “cannot find out
what God has done from the beginning to the end.” (Eccl. 3:11) In fact,
any attempt to explain why God created the universe runs into the danger
of suggesting that God had to create for some reason. No, God creates
in freedom. But we are told that God did not create the world a chaos (Is. 45:18),
and we are given a vision of the completion of God’s work in the Book
of Revelation.

Scientific developments have forced us to discard some ideas about God’s
design in creation. Modern astrophysics has shown that births and deaths of
stars are still occurring, so that we know that the stars were not all simply
set in place in the beginning. The Darwinian theory of evolution argues that
life has developed through a process of natural selection, rather than having
had all its features displayed when the world was young. It isn’t surprising,
then, that some scientists and philosophers have come to doubt that there is
any meaning or purpose to the universe. Scientifically, they argue, we can only
seek to understand the world as it is, and can’t explain why
it is that way.

The Scientific Anthropic Principle

But recent work in cosmology has led some scientists to wonder if the universe
does “just happen” to be as it is. Doubts about the accidental character
of the world stem from discoveries that a universe much different from ours
would not have allowed the development of the kind of life that we know. The
idea of the apparent fitness of the cosmos for our species has found expression
in recent years as the “anthropic principle,” and has become a fairly
hot topic among scientists. Barrow and Tipler’s The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle 1 provides a massive treatment of the subject, to which I would
refer the reader for further details on some points I will consider. There are
also briefer and less technical surveys available.2

Perhaps the simplest example with which to begin a discussion of the anthropic
principle is the basic force of gravitation. There is a gravitational pull between
any two pieces of matter in the universe which depends on the masses of the bodies
and the distance between them. Two masses of one kilogram separated by a meter
attract one another with a force of about fifteen-trillionths of a pound. That
seems a quite arbitrary value, and we can easily imagine universes in which gravity
would be stronger or weaker. But if gravity were much stronger than it is, the
expansion of the universe which is now generally thought to have begun in the
Big Bang would quickly have been brought to a halt and the universe would have
collapsed long before life could develop. And if gravity were much weaker than
we experience, the universe would have thinned out so quickly that no stars or
planets would have formed. Again, life as we know it would not have come about.

So tinkering with the strength of gravity would probably have produced a universe
in which life with a physical and chemical basis like ours was impossible. Tinkering
with other numbers which characterize our universe, such as the strengths of electromagnetic
or nuclear forces, would have had a similar effect. It seems as if the universe
is just right for humanity.

One can, of course, speculate on the possibilities for life forms which have a
fundamentally different physico-chemical basis from ours. But at present we know
nothing scientifically about how life might develop in, for example, a cloud of
pure hydrogen. We cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of life that is not
carbon-based, does not require water, and so forth, but at present we have to
leave consideration of such possibilities to science fiction, for we have no scientific
evidence even to suggest any probability of such life.

A precise statement of the anthropic principle can take several forms. A weak
version is simply the observation that the universe as we know it is compatible
with human life. To this extent the anthropic principle is not particularly speculative
or controversial. If regarded simply as the statement “we are here,”
it may even seem trivially obvious. But it is not trivial, for it is far from
obvious a priori that a universe will satisfy the rather stringent physical conditions
for life.

But there are stronger, more speculative, and more controversial versions
of the anthropic principle which state that in some sense the universe must
be compatible with intelligent life, or even that such life must indeed develop.
These stronger versions are no longer simply statements about the physical parameters
of the universe and of living systems, but are far-reaching claims about two-way
relationships between the universe and the life which can exist in it.

Stronger versions of the anthropic principle may simply express the belief
that the fitness of the universe for life must be “more than coincidence.”
But some versions, such as Wheeler’s “Participatory Anthropic Principle,”3
depend upon the critical role which observation, and therefore observers, play
in modern quantum theory. At the atomic level, it does not seem to be possible
to describe physical processes without consideration of the type of observation
which is carried out on them. Quantum theory allows us to calculate probabilities
for events to occur, and demands that there be an observation of the physical
system in order for any one of the events to become a known certainty. (This
involves the so-called “collapse of the wave packet.”) In one standard
example in which a beam of electrons strikes a screen with holes in it, the
pattern of electrons passing through the screen depends on whether or not one
observes which hole each electron goes through.4 This kind of result
leads some theorists to take the strong position that an event must be observed
in order to exist.5

(It should be emphasized that we are talking here about real acts of observation,
which involve physical apparatus—Geiger counters, eyes, etc.—as well
as conscious minds. Thus what is in view here is not just an idea that the mind
creates its own reality, as in the more simplistic versions of New Age thought.)

Such an idea may seem very speculative, and some may be reminded of the views
of the eighteenth-century bishop/philosopher George Berkeley. Certainly the
claim that the existence of events requires observation is an extreme
position which not all physicists or philosophers of science would take. But
those who do take such a position feel driven to it by the facts of quantum
physics, and not by any a priori commitment to idealistic philosophy. Any theory
based on this idea should therefore be regarded as speculative, but not on that
account outside the realm of legitimate scientific theorizing.

If observers are necessary in order for events to have meaningful existence, then
there must be physical observers in order for there to be a physical universe.
Thus we would be led to a version of the anthropic principle asserting that in
order for the universe to exist, life must develop within it. Given the necessity
of intelligent observers, some have gone on to speculate that intelligent life
cannot die out but must continue forever, evolving toward ever greater intelligence
and control of the universe.

A Christian Theanthropic Principle

Faced with these anthropic principles, Christians can hardly help but ask whether
or not they might have anything to do with the traditional understanding of God
as the creator of the universe. Care is necessary here. It is a serious theological
error to canonize any particular scientific theory, as the medieval church tended
to do with the Aristotelian understanding of the world. Still, it is important
for theology and science to be in dialogue. Theologians need to be in touch with
what is going on at the frontiers of science, and to see what light the Judaeo-Christian
tradition can shed on fundamental questions that are being asked there. That tradition
does have some important things to say about a cosmic significance for humanity.
Our goal should be neither to provide theological sanction for scientific versions
of the anthropic principle nor to make our religious view of the role of humanity
depend on current scientific results, but to see whether scientific and theological
views have any parallels and can mutually inform one another.

At first glance the anthropic principle might simply seem to allow another revival
of the old Argument from Design: Since the universe is so finely tuned for life,
there must have been a “Tuner,” a God who created the world. A Christian
may interpret at least the weak form of the anthropic principle as the traditional
idea that God created a universe for humans to inhabit.

But the anthropic principle can serve to challenge us to consider a more profound
aspect of Christian thought. The stronger forms of that principle do not look
only to a purposeful creation in the beginning, but suggest a fundamental role
for humanity in the middle of cosmic history, and point toward a culmination
of that history in humanity. The anthropic principle suggests that we need to
consider creation from the end as well as from the beginning.

God is spoken of in Scripture as the first and the last (Is. 44:6), “the
Alpha and the Omega.” (Rev. 1:8) God created the heavens and the earth in
the beginning (Gen. 1:1), and in the end will “be everything to everyone.”
(2 Cor. 15:28) But even to speak of God in that way does not reveal the full depth
of the Christian vision. The New Testament speaks of a central role for humanity
in the history of the universe, and to that extent there is a parallel with scientific
statements of the anthropic principle. In the Bible, however, the focus is not
merely on humanity as a product of human evolution, but on that humanity indwelt
by the One through whom the universe was made.

The Letter to the Colossians says that all things were created in Christ:

For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all
things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and
in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he
is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might
be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and
through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven,
making peace by the blood of his cross. (1:16–20)

Not only are “all things” created through him, but they
are also created for him. It is in the human Jesus Christ that the
universe has its fulfillment. And so in Rev. 22:13, it is Jesus who applies
to himself the divine titles “the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,
the beginning and the end.” Thus the New Testament presents us with what
we might call a theanthropic principle: God has created a universe
in which human life can develop, and God has personally united himself with
humanity, and thus with the whole universe, in order to bring the creation to
its fulfillment.

Of course this theanthropic principle rests on a basis quite different from the
anthropic principles discussed earlier. The theological statement comes from God’s
revelation in Jesus Christ, and not from anything about the strength of gravitation
or the quantum-mechanical theory of observation. But the strong scientific forms
of the anthropic principle, which, as far as they go, do not seem to be incompatible
with the theanthropic principle, call our attention to this theological theme
with special urgency. Thus science plays at least a suggestive role for theology
here.

Physical reality, that accessible to natural science, does not exhaust the
creation. Christian theology has generally spoken of invisible angelic creatures
and/or the spiritual meaning of the physical, social, and political
structures that exist within our world. These are ways of understanding the
thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities of Colossians 1.6
Natural science does not say anything for or against the existence of such realities,
which the New Testament argues are also brought to their fulfillment through
the cross and resurrection of Christ. This is one illustration of the fact that
the theanthropic principle has a larger scope than do the scientific anthropic
principles.

The ideas of a number of theologians already provide some suggestions for
the formulation of a theanthropic principle: Scientific developments, while
provocative, have not taken theology completely by surprise. We may note, for
example, some of the ideas of Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Jurgen Moltmann.7
But perhaps we will think first of Teilhard de Chardin, who made use of the
ultimate eschatological title of Christ when he designated the future convergence
point of the universe as “Omega.”8

The theanthropic principle means that God’s future is in an important
sense known to us. It has been made known to us in God’s revelation
in Christ, and is in fundamental ways continuous with Jesus of Nazareth who
was born, died, and rose again some two thousand years ago on this earth—the
Jesus who is our brother. Of course we may expect that before the termination
of the universe’s history, the human race will encounter many incredible
phenomena that we can scarcely dream of today. But the center of all of that
will be God Incarnate, Jesus Christ.

The universe was created with humanity in view, but not for humanity as an
end in itself. In creating men and women, God created the possibility that the
dwelling of God might be with humanity in creation. (Rev. 21:3)9 It
is appropriate, as long as the observational evidence warrants it, for science
to speak of an anthropic principle, but theology cannot be content to stop with
that. It must speak of God present with humanity in Jesus Christ, of a theanthropic
principle, and look to God Incarnate as the head of a new humanity, the Body
of Christ, in which the universe finds its fulfillment. •

Notes:

1. Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
(Oxford, 1986).
2. E.g., Rothman, Tony, “A ‘What You See Is What You Beget’
Theory”, Discover, May 1987, p. 90.
3. Wheeler, John A. in Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences,
ed. R. E. Butts and J. Hintikka (Reidel, 1977), p. 3. Barrow and Tipler, The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Chapters 1 and 7.
4. E.g., Feynman, Richard P., Leighton, Robert B., and Sands, Matthew, The
Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, 1965), Volume III, Chapters
1–3. For a detailed survey of interpretations of quantum mechanics see
Jammer, Max, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (John Wiley, 1974).
5. See Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Chapter
7, and references given there.
6. For some consideration on the “elements of the universe” and
“principalities and powers” in connection with modern science and
technology see Murphy, George L., “Toward a Theology of Technological
War”, Dialog, Winter 1988, p. 48.
7. Barth, Karl, Dogmatics in Outline (Harper & Row, 1959), Chapter
10. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Jesus—God and Man, (Westminster, 1977),
pp. 390–397. Moltmann, Jurgen, The Future of Creation (Fortress,
1979).
8. E.g., Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (Harper
& Brothers, 1959).
9. It is worth noting that the Hebrew canon, which begins with the creation
of the world in Genesis, concludes with the direction to rebuild “a house”
for “the God of heaven” in 2 Chron. 36:23. (Kogan, Barry S. in Creation
and the End of Days, ed., David Novak and Norbert Samuelson (University
Press of America, 1986), p. 98. This eschatological theme is developed in the
New Testament in Jn. 2:18–22 and Rev. 21:22.

George L. Murphy is pastor of St. Mark Lutheran
Church (ELCA), Tallmadge, Ohio. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from Johns Hopkins
University and has taught college physics for twelve years.

“The Man for Whom the World was Made” first appeared in the Fall 1989 issue of Touchstone. If you enjoyed this article, you'll find more of the same in every issue.

Letters Welcome: One of the reasons Touchstone exists is to encourage conversation among Christians, so we welcome letters responding to articles or raising matters of interest to our readers. However, because the space is limited, please keep your letters under 400 words. All letters may be edited for space and clarity when necessary. letters@touchstonemag.com